Two more lawsuits have been filed over land-use issues against Wildomar, which has been plagued by legal challenges since it became a city in 2008.

Environmental attorney Raymond Johnson filed the actions Monday, Jan. 6 in Riverside County Superior Court on behalf of the Alliance for Intelligent Planning led by Sheryl Ade, a former city councilwoman.

The petitions, however, had yet to be served by Friday on the city or an investment firm also named as a defendant, according to online court records.

In an interview Friday, Jan. 10, Ade said the petitions are an attempt to force the city to uphold its general plan, which she believes the City Council failed to do in making two land-use decisions on Dec. 11.

“I’m all for development, but I’m not for destroying the general plan of this community,” Ade said. “When that happens, something’s wrong. …The general plan is the law. Our council people and planning commissioners took an oath to follow the law.”

City officials maintain Ade, Johnson and others are peppering the city with legal challenges as a strategy to undermine it.

The alliance’s suit against Wildomar and C.V. Communities seeks to overturn the Dec. 11 approval of a development agreement between the city and the firm over its plan to build 157 homes on about 60 acres of vacant land at the southeast corner of Palomar and McVicker streets.

The agreement gives the firm a break on fees the developer would pay to finance public improvements in exchange for participating in a community facilities district. Through the district, homebuyers in newly built residential developments pay taxes supporting ongoing public services.

The alliance contends one of the subdivision maps for land on which C.V. wants to build 102 homes has expired and is invalid. Also, the suit claims the agreement fails to address environmental issues, especially the relationship of a flood plain and channel to the future project.

Changes have occurred in nearby Murrieta Creek at the Clinton Keith Road bridge and culvert that were ignored by the council in its approval of the agreement, according to the petition.

“Such changes may result in on-site and off-site flooding should the Project be approved and may hinder the relied-upon culvert’s capability to effectively function,” the suit states.

City officials contend the map remains valid because of ongoing extensions and issues have been adequately analyzed as they relate to the agreement. More in-depth environmental study isn’t needed until project design plans are submitted, officials say.

The other suit challenges the validity of the city’s housing element, a state-mandated document requiring municipalities to prove they have enough land zoned to meet future housing needs, including low-income households.

In approving the element on Dec. 11, the council endorsed zone changes that increased housing densities on certain properties at the expense of some commercial zoning, and without sufficient scrutiny of those effects as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the petition maintains.

“It’s like they took CEQA and just threw it into the waste basket,” Ade said.

City Councilman Tim Walker, who was mayor when the council acted on the development agreement and housing element, said at the time he wouldn’t be surprised if the decisions prompted legal action, based on critical letters Johnson had submitted to the city.

Of the expected challenge to the CV project, Walker said. “They’re just trying to stall it. It’s a stall tactic.”

Ade and her group, with Johnson as their attorney, previously sued the city to block a small commercial center to be anchored by a Subway sandwich shop on Bundy Canyon Road west of Interstate 15. That lawsuit was settled with the property owner’s agreement to make some changes, including improved drainage measures.

Other lawsuits against the city include challenges to the validity of its general plan, its at-large voting system and the council’s approval of a proposed 275-home development in eastern Wildomar.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.